D’Souza is also charged with causing false statements to be made to the FEC, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. Federal law during the time his contributions were made allowed individual campaign contributions up to a total of $5,000.

On his Facebook page, D’Souza links to a story by Hollywood Report, pulling out a quote from his co-producer: “In light of the recent events and the way the IRS has been used to stifle dissent, this arrest should send shivers down the spines of all freedom-loving Americans.” -Gerald Molen

D’Souza resigned in 2012 as president of the King’s College in New York City, amid a scandal involving an alleged extramarital relationship. He resigned after the evangelical magazine World reported he brought his fiancee to a Christian values conference in South Carolina before filing for a divorce.

D’Souza’s appointment at King’s was initially under scrutiny because of his Roman Catholic background, which made him an unusual choice for a historically evangelical school. World magazine editor-in-chief Marvin Olasky resigned as provost shortly after D’Souza was hired.

“Dinesh D’Souza’s relationship with The King’s College ended in October 2012. Inasmuch as he is no longer affiliated with the college, we are not in a position to comment on the recent news report concerning him,” a statement from the college says.

D’Souza was replaced last year by Gregory Thornbury, formerly dean of the School of Theology at Union University.

D’Souza, 52, is a best-selling author and filmmaker. His movie “2016: Obama’s America” was the second-highest-grossing political documentary of all time, according to Fox News.

Before Christmas, he filmed an endorsement advertising a Christmas tree. As Christianity Today notes, D’Souza is scheduled to debate liberal activist Bill Ayers in an event billed as “The Ultimate Fight Between Left and Right” on Jan. 30 at his alma mater, Dartmouth College.

D’Souza narrated for a recent trailer for a new film titled “America, Imagine a World Without It … ” The film explores the question “What if America Never Existed?”

Update (1/25): D’Souza pleaded “not guilty” Friday (Jan. 24) in New York during his arraignment. He was briefly handcuffed before he was released on a $500,000 bond.

D’Souza’s attorney, Benjamin Brafman, said D’Souza’s action were merely “an act of misguided friendship” and that “there was never a corrupt agreement of any kind.”

FBI assistant director-in-charge George Venizelos said otherwise.

“Trying to influence elections through bogus campaign contributions is a serious crime. Today, Mr. D’Souza finds himself on the wrong side of the law,” Venizelos said. “The Federal Election Campaign Act was written to limit the influence of money in elections; The FBI is fiercely committed to enforcing those laws to maintain the integrity of our democratic process.”

About the author

Sarah Pulliam Bailey

Sarah Pulliam Bailey is a national correspondent for RNS, covering how faith intersects with politics, culture and other news. She previously served as online editor for Christianity Today where she remains an editor-at-large.

47 Comments

Let me get this correct, a right wing conservative activist catholic cheats on his wife, and then has possibly broken laws? I can’t hardly believe that this man, who is obviously double-dipping into the pool of morality could be guilty of either of this immorality. Can you?

I like that, Earold, about the “double-dipping.” What multiple of dipping do we attribute to Bill Clinton? But Chillary stayed by his side–well, outside the bedroom, anyway..

Yep, you found a man who violated the moral laws he claimed to believe in; therefore, religion is poison. Did you skp the class in logic at school? Maybe it was a liberal school, where logic is outlawed. See, I got to use THE word this time!

By the way, conservatives never say they are personally immune from “the call of the wild.” Our concern in the political arena is that the federal government stay within the bounds set for it by the Constitution.

Oh, wait! I get it now! Conservatives are to be condemned for violating the moral code they say they believe in. Liberals, though, are not to be condemned for having no moral code other than one they invent for themselves and change at will; they are the arbiters of all truth for themselves and for everyone else.

I thank you, Earold, for leading me along the path of righteous thinkin’..

D’Souza says morality comes from the Christian God.
But if he were an Atheist he might have known better – we are responsible for OURSELVES and are JUDGED by our peers and there is likely NO redemption. So DON’T be immoral.

D’Souza was told by his religion that it is okay to be immoral because he would be forgiven.
Every Christian is eventually tripped up by this delusion and suffers for it. I see him as a victim of a warm and fuzzy yet deceptively poisonous philosophy.

Philosophies which absolves you of personal responsibility is not moral.

So where is your opinion about D’Souza’s immoral acts in of themselves?

He did something you admit to is a violation of moral laws. Why aren’t you condemning him for it? Because he’s a conservative. You can’t criticize your own in public. Its personally embarrassing. You never apply your “moral” high horse to your own.

When they do something wrong your default mode is to say “liberals are doing it too. why are you singling us out?” Deflect rather reflect. Morality is something which is only used to judge others. So many motes, so many planks.

Larry, I presume your comment is directed to me. I didn’t think it necessary to waste words on condemning D’Souza because I would have thought that it is well established even among liberals that conservatism does not approve of extra-marital affairs. No, I don’t approve of D’Souza’s behavior. The least he could have done was to divorce first, then play around.

I posed the Clinton question to Earold more out of humor than anything else. I presume you know me well enough so as not to assume that I follow the “if liberals can do it, so can we” sub-teen nonsense regarding moral issues.

Now, on political issues I believe that the GOP should follow the liberals’ example rather than compromising with them, which is something liberals never do with conservatives. Remember, Obamacare was passed without it having been read by the passers, no input by way of amendments by the GOP being permitted by Pelosi or Reid. If the GOP had acted this way when it had full power during part of Bush’s administration, we would be in much better shape all-around today. No, instead the GOP did what is in the establishment’s DNA: give us more government. But I digress.

So one person’s behavior is representative of an entire religion or group, Larry? May I suggest you try Logic 101 before keyboarding? Conservatism comes in many shades, unlike the contemporary liberalism which you espouse. We fight among ourselves, something never seen in your crowd.

The issue right now is not his extramarital affair, its the illegal campaign contributions.

I could care less what he does in the privacy of his home with a consenting adult. Although it was ironic to represent Christian morality in the political sphere while violating it so flagrantly. More worthy of ridicule than sanction.

On political issues, you only reserve judgment on liberals (or calling anyone who disagrees with you a liberal) and make muted, after the fact ones with those whose politics you agree with. The issue is not Clinton, Bush, Obamacare, Pelosi or Reid. It is D’Souza. The only strawman being built here is your own.

As for the GOP acting the way it did from 2000-2008, maybe you don’t realize that they didn’t take views such as yours seriously back then. They didn’t have to. Social conservatives delivered votes to Fiscal Conservatives and were so polarizing that they were not to produce anything threatening to the Constitution in Congress.

So do you have an opinion on D’Souza’s campaign finance violations or not?

IMO, his reaction tells us everything we need to know. He doesn’t deny the acts, make excuses for them, or even show an ounce of recognition of what he did was wrong. Very sociopathic.

D’Souza is a PROFESSIONAL SPOKESPERSON for several Conservative Christian organizations. So his public views literally are the ones representative of an entire group. That is what he is paid for. Those are the people paying him.

Max, Christianity, certainly not Catholicism, does not absolve people of personal responsibility. We state that personal responsibility stems from the requirement we all have to honor the natural and moral law code–that is, following our good consciences. This code stems from that world of metaphysics wherein we find the source of it. That source has been sometimes pictured, so to speak, as an old man with long hair. At other times it is left to be more abstract but still a force of some sort that explains all of existence. This is what is meant by supreme being, or god, or first cause, or whatever term we wish to apply to it.

What you say about responsibility is true. Perhaps we differ only in adding that this responsibility does not originate with us personally but beyond us as individuals. Otherwise, we’re left with each person being the decider of a moral code. If that is the case, how can we argue against behavior by another that threatens ourselves or society more generally? The moral code must exist for all of us; therefore, it cannot originate in the individual alone.

No place to respond to your 10:39 comment. Why is there no “reply” button there? This often happens. Anyway,

First, you’re wrong to assume that D’Souza has violated any laws. To this point, anyway, no legal authority is going after him. Do you remember “Innocent until proven guilty”? If he’s to becharged, tried and found guilty, so be it. It may well happen since the IRS now has a proven record of going after conservatives and ignoring liberals, especially when it comes to political action groups. Perhaps you’re unaware of this fact.

Secondly, legal or not I do not approve of the way Pavone was handling finances if for no other reason than it gives the appearance of wrongdoing. He should have known better. Perhaps his conduct here is not a-typical of the conduct generally of people who find themselves in positions of a power that has also gone to their heads.

No, the establishment GOP does not take conservative views seriously. This is why we have two liberal political parties, and it is why we have a rebellion within one of them. That is why the establishment GOP is so upset, and it is also why the liberal party is upset. A realignment of the GOP would pose a substantial threat to the continued advancement of liberal causes, and the liberals know this.

Let me offer you an example from the 2008 presidential campaign. The libs’ fave newspaper, the NYT endorsed McCain as the best GOP candidate. Come election time it saved all its favor for Obama and continually blasted McCain. It got what it wanted: the liberral GOP candidate which it knew would not be acceptable to the conservative base, thereby weakening the GOP campaign and resulting in the election of a socialist. Game, set, match.

I forussed on D’Souza first. I then brought in other related points that you cannot stomach because they hit your liberalism in the gut. Your only recourse is to complain–to whine–that I even mentioned them.

You don’t set the rules for political discourse, despite your thinking you have the right to do so. You can only offer valid criticism of my failure–when it happens–to address the issue presented. I have always addressed the issue first and then gone on to rattle liberals’ sensibilities by pointing to their pecadillos that are related to that main point.

Perhaps your ideal is Chuck Schumer. He was on tv this morning railing against conservative political action committees and expressing the wish that the IRS would shut them down. There’s your liberals for you, Larry. Are you proud of them? He’s not alone. Obama has reserved all direct criticism for Fox and talk radio. Gee, I wonder why!

And I’ve just given you more of what you don’t like to here–after first addressing your concerns.

So now D’Souza is a sociopath? There’s nothing presented about him so far that permits you to make this psychiatric judgment. However, yours is a demonstration of what I’ve been point out to you about your m.o. for awhile: you reinvent the language to suit your needs.

Don’t interpret this as a defense of D’Souza. I’ve learned enough to know that I personally want nothing to do with him. However, I also accept your liberals’ strategy on the political gridiron: anything he can do to help topple the WH regime and cripple lilberalism at the ballot box is a welcome contribution. You know that politics is war, that both sides play dirty, that you approve of this sort of play by liberals, and that you are being held to approve of it by conservatives in order to maintain your own logical consistency.

Are you lumping ALL conservative organizations under one banner? D’Souza is only one player on the conservative scene, and I’ll suggest to you that he’s not a major player you would make him out to be. If he were, I’d see and hear more of him from the sources I follow closely.

I am glad, though, that RNS has brought him into closer focus for me. I’ll now ignore him altogether, save for one proviso: that he be successful in his own way to help topple contemporary liberalism from its perch. Remember, politics is war. At least your side knows it. My side, not so much.

Sure does. I’ll bet the lib regulars here will ignore the facts you’ve posted. They have to because they can’t argue them.

I also KNOW that they are unaware of these facts until you posted them. Their “news” sources think “journalism” should promote a specific political and cultural philosophy and ignore inconvenient truths.

Liberals are quick to indict a convservative GOP member, but are slow to do anything about the law breaking liberals, IRS, NSA, Hillary, and Obama’s abusive power. America is spiraling out of control. Obama entered office with 9 Trillion debt inherited and we are now approaching 20 Trillion? WTH! Denish was right in his prior film. Obama wants to bankrupt America for a purpose. Do we not see this? I don’t care who is in power GOP or Liberals, Why are we letting these people destroy our country with out of control spending?

Someone who commits illegal acts, acts he would normally decry in others as immoral and shows no recognition of wrongdoing is the kind of behavior one associates with sociopaths. I did preface it with IMO. An opinion. I am entitled to one, as are you. Your trollish response is duly noted.

After several posts, I finally got an opinion out of you on the guy! You want to distance yourself from him. Perfectly understandable. His behavior was reprehensible and you have no desire to defend it.

Of course couch that in a sea of pointless “liberals do blah..blah….” but that is what you do. It is your nature.

I don’t like campaign finance dirty tricks by anyone. I admired Republicans who actively sought to reform campaign financing as I do for Democrats who do the same. I do not play the Tu Quoque fallacy as my default argument.

Its not my assumption, it is a Federal Grand Jury which assumes he has committed crimes. That’s what an indictment is for. Your legal scholarship notwithstanding.

We can discuss Pavone in his own thread. You don’t have to provide an example of something we both agree on. The Republicans don’t take your brand of conservatism seriously unless they want your votes.

You did not focus on D’Souza at all until it was clear I wasn’t going to take your Tu Quoque arguments seriously. Still don’t.

Larry, regarding your early afternoon reply: When I wrote earlier I didn’t realize that D’Souza had already been indicted. I assume from that fact alone that the government at least thinks it has an actionable offense.

Would that it looked among some of the liberal groups as readily as it looks among the conservatives.

Yes I am lumping conservative organizations under one banner. Especially all the ones which pay Mr. D’Souza to represent him publicly. I know its surprising that someone besides yourself is making wide sweeping generalizations about people based on political leanings. Maybe you just don’t like competition. =)

We’re allowing this to happen, Wendy, because we have two nearly identical major political parties in this country. We can’t win by electing establishment Republicans, During two years of Bush’s second term the GOP ruled Congress. Spending increased substantially. That’s the reason why the electorate threw the House back into Pelosi’s hands. And, of course, we got more of the same at even greater expense. So we give the liberals a big heave-ho in 2010–and the GOP does nothing to curb spending. They are afraid of their own shadow as much as they fear whining liberals, so they continue to allow Obama to rule by diktat (executive orders) and won’t use their power of the purse to restrain government.

You should care who’s in power. You should vote for conservatives. If they happen to be in the GOP, fine. If not, it doesn’t matter. We lose with either political party, as history proves.

Here’s something for your consideration, Larry: Back when the illustrious John Edwards was running for president, a donor who contributed to his campaign more than the law permits was given what amounts to a slap on the wrist for his transgressions.

You won’t hear about this one on any of your “news” sources, I’m certain, but I’m also sure you’ll agree that D’Souza should be afforded the same consideration.

I’ve commented aplenty on D’Souza already today. Perhaps you missed it. See above. While I disapprove of his lifestyle, I welcome anything he can do to help topple the insane regime now ruling the nation. Politics is war, and you know that the liberals consider it such. Too bad more conservatives don’t play by that same philosophy.

I’ll agree that the religion more commonly known as liberalism is poison!

Duane, After I typed my reply I saw your back and forth with Larry and your comments about many things, including D’Souza. You must really hate the Democrats to compromise your principles like that. I think both sides play dirty, and neither party holds the high ground, but that is political war is.

Earold, please explain how I compromised my principles. If you’re referring to my calling for conservatives to treat politics as war, as the liberals do, and fight accordingly, I do not consider that a comproimise. Perhaps you have something different in mind regarding my compromising.

To do otherwise would be to roll over and play dead–which is what liberals prefer us to do since they know that their idea about the nature of the federal government is correct, a half-century of evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

This is a fight for a Constitutional government as envisioned by the Founders and made the basic law of the land. Better that we duel this fight out in a Constitutional manner. Otherwise, we may find that sufficient numbers of people, a majority, will either instigate or support a more drastic “course correction.”

Duane, Speaking of D’Souza you wrote “While I disapprove of his lifestyle, I welcome anything he can do to help topple the insane regime now ruling the nation.”, your compromise.

I’ll agree that nothing has been optimal. ever, it is not because there is a version of a utopian society to be had, it doesn’t exists. The very nature of humans, with each thinking differently, and valuing different things make this so.

I contend that religion plays a huge part in why humans can’t live together in peace, and better thrive as a species. With all the different beliefs, all based on the unprovable superstition, there is no way we will ever come close to harmony. That is why, to human…

Re: “What multiple of dipping do we attribute to Bill Clinton? But Chillary stayed by his side–well, outside the bedroom, anyway.”

Ah, the old “two wrongs make a right” fallacy. Thanks for that. I was wondering when one of D’Souza’s champions would present that ridiculous defense.

Re: “Yep, you found a man who violated the moral laws he claimed to believe in …”

Yes, and as a Christian he is strictly, explicitly, clearly and unambiguously forbidden, by his religion’s founder, from doing this. Please see e.g. Mt 7:3-5 & Lk 6:42, et al. He CANNOT do this. It is NOT permitted for any Christian. Not once, ever.

Re: “By the way, conservatives never say they are personally immune from ‘the call of the wild.'”

No, they just run around trumpeting that there’s no morality outside of Christianity. And then, as you’ve done, they declare that, even in spite of their Christianity creating morality, it’s somehow too much to expect them to actually be as moral as they claim to be.

Sorry but they can’t have it both ways. Either their Christianity makes them moral, which means they shouldn’t be caught doing anything immoral, or it doesn’t, in which case they’re no more or less moral than anyone else. So which is it? You pick.

Re: “Conservatives are to be condemned for violating the moral code they say they believe in.”

Yes, because the founder of their religion strictly, explicitly, clearly and unambiguously forbid this kind of hypocrisy. They CANNOT do it. It is NOT permissible for them. Their own Jesus told them so.

Re: “Liberals, though, are not to be condemned for having no moral code other than one they invent for themselves and change at will; they are the arbiters of all truth for themselves and for everyone else.”

You condemn “liberals” for having no moral code, but then proudly announce that conservatives shouldn’t be expected to obey the moral code they proudly claim to have. Pardon me, but as an impartial observer, I don’t see any difference here. On the one hand, according to your words, we have “liberals” with no morality at all, and on the other, conservatives who ostensibly have morality but refuse to follow it.

Max, I think you’ll find people on both sides who would quibble with you about taking one line of verse and making judgments about it without its context.

I give you a challenge, though, in the meantime: What is your source of morality? It likely is a very short answer–would be for any of us, I think. Give us that and we’ll do some more dialoging. No, I’m not out to convert anybody because I have enough problems with the mysteries of existence to do that. Hope to hear from you, though.

Regarding your post Saturday morning: Sorry, Earold, but what I said about D’Souza’s efforts does not represent a compromise. I agree with his philosophy. I condemn his personal behavior. You can’t separate the two concepts, or is this simply a grasping at any straw for some purpose or other? It certainly doesn’t aid your position and does nothing to weaken mine.

I don’t hate Democrats as individuals, not most of them. There comes a point, however, where we can maintain justifiable hate when a particular Democrat has the power to effect the countrywide damage that is the necessary result of his positions and actions.

Yes, there’s one Democrat I hate, and his leaving the scene one way or another would help relieve the country of the terrible burden he has placed on it–largely out of his own hatred for the country he has adopted.

Perhaps my position is “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” To maintain my distance I would simply reiterate D’Souza’s positions without referring to him by name if I were someone in the public eye.

PsiCop, I never said two wrongs make a right to justify anything. I merely pointed out the double standard that is part of the liberals’ DNA: criticize their political opponents for conduct by one of their own that is just as glaring. Someone can always begin a reply in an argument by stating “While I think [a certain Democrat’s] conduct was deplorable. . .” and then go on to make their point.

Liberals don’t do this; nor does the lapdog media do it. For example: Where in the mainstream media will you hear that a prominent donor to John Pretty Boy Edwards’s campaign was charged only with a misdemeanor for donating 20 grand to the campaign but D’Souza’s being charged with a felony? You won’t hear it, nor do you even want these comparisons made, I suspect.

Many conservatives are not even religious, but you’ve lumped all of them into the Christian category. Why? Nor do I say it is too much to expect Christian conservatives to live by what they say they believe. Nor did I say Christians shouldn’t be expected to abide by their beliefs. If you can justify your remark, cite chapter and verse. That, or withdraw your remark as being rash and delivered only in the heat of argument. I’ve done that and apologized for it. I’ll wait for your apology. Or would that be foolish of me?

PsiCop, what I believe your reply indicates is the same sort of lack of intellectual discipline that is rampant among people on the left. It comes, I think, from a lack of understanding of the role of logic in all our decision-making, maybe a lack of some sort in upbringing. Or maybe a rejection of certain values without having the intellectual discipline to defend the alternatives adopted. Yes, I’ll say that people on the left, by and large, cannot offer disciplined defenses of what they promote.

When last have you seen a leftist politician willfully engage a conservative on one point or another? They refuse to do so. This is best summed up in Pelosi’s public statement that “We have to pass the law (ACA) in order to see what’s in it.” Not only that, she (and Reid and Obama) refuses to allow any legislative “fix” for the damned thing. That’s a good example of liberal m.o.

Yes, that inner moral compass exists regardless of religion. What much of religion, I submit, has done over the millenia is to use “codify” the “readings” on that compass. The Decalog is one such reading of it, and a most inclusive one at that. The Catholic Church speaks of “the well-informed conscience,” I think. This is to recognize that there are people who have no “conscience” regarding certain behavior, if not all behavior.

Indeed, religion probably has never helped the psychopath. Indeed, a psychopath in power can use religion as a means of protecting his power.

Now, the question which you have yet to answer–I don’t mean this critically: What is the source of that moral code, that inner compass, and on what basis do we define those without it as psychopathic?

We, you and I, are now at the door of the metaphysical questions that are the foundations of all religions. I await your reply.

You are the first person in my experience on this site to confront the issue.

I do not know of the Christianity you speak of. A straw-man perhaps. However on what grounds can Atheism hold any sway when it comes to morality? A very weak one at best. Morality is a foreign concept to a purposeless and accidental universe and yourself a complete accident. At best it is subjective! Bereft of any objective standard. When you speak of responsibility I find you might be confused! Responsible to another accident like yourself? In Christian thought we are all sinners and responsible to God and laws that are from Gods word. So if you are without sin go ahead cast the first stone. You sound just like a hypocrite. Oh, the irony!

Re: “PsiCop, I never said two wrongs make a right to justify anything. I merely pointed out the double standard that is part of the liberals’ DNA: criticize their political opponents for conduct by one of their own that is just as glaring.”

If there’s a difference between these two things, I haven’t a clue what it could possibly be. As I said, you employed “two wrongs make a right” thinking. Just ‘fess up to it. OK?

Re: “Many conservatives are not even religious, but you’ve lumped all of them into the Christian category. Why?”

Because “Christian Nationers” are the engineers driving the train of American conservatism. It’s possible for other types of folks to be riding that train with them, but if they are, they willingly bought tickets and agreed to be driven by them. So in the end, I don’t see much of a distinction.

Re: “Nor do I say it is too much to expect Christian conservatives to live by what they say they believe.”

Uh, yes you did.

Re: “If you can justify your remark, cite chapter and verse.”

Did you catch the parts where I quoted you precisely? Go back and read what I typed again.

Re: “That, or withdraw your remark as being rash and delivered only in the heat of argument.”

Why should I? I’m correct. And I already sustained the burden of quoting you. You can stamp and fume and be offended all you like, but I’m not withdrawing anything.

Re: “PsiCop, what I believe your reply indicates is the same sort of lack of intellectual discipline that is rampant among people on the left.”

Boy, if that’s not the kettle calling the pot black! “Lack of intellectual discipline”? This coming from the person who used “two wrongs make a right” thinking (yet insists he didn’t, in spite of the fact that he very clearly did). And from someone who actively defends the hypocrisy of his fellow Christian, in spite of the fact that Jesus explicitly and unambiguously forbid his followers ever to be hypocritical.

Re: “When last have you seen a leftist politician willfully engage a conservative on one point or another?”

I’ve never seen a conservative politician allow him/herself to “be engaged” with anyone about anything. All they do is spew their endless Rightist mantras without explaining or justifying them. Granted, the Left is known to do that too, however, that doesn’t grant Rightists permission to behave the same childish way.

Re: “This is best summed up in Pelosi’s public statement that ‘We have to pass the law (ACA) in order to see what’s in it.'”

Once again you use something a Leftist said, to justify what Rightists say and do. You repeatedly use “two wrongs make a right” thinking … and aren’t even aware of it. My guess is, you’ll insist you didn’t do so … but you did, nevertheless, and no amount of you stamping and fuming about it can change that fact.

I will be clear here: NOTHING — not one single thing! — any Leftist ever says or does, can ever possibly be used as a permission slip for Rightists to misbehave.

Re: “That’s a good example of liberal m.o.”

And your active defense of Christians being hypocritical (in spite of Jesus’ clear and undeniable injunction against any kind of hypocrisy), and your repeated reliance on “two wrongs make a right” thinking, are sterling examples of the conservative M.O.